Bel is thinking

Alcohol Concern, a charity dedicated to fighting the evils of the demon drink, have come up with some proposals. Among other things, they would like to see the prosecution of parents who give alcohol to their children, even with a meal at home.

I would argue the other way. Perhaps introducing children to alcohol early, and in a responsible manner, would demystify alcohol in the minds of the chidren. Having a small amount of alcohol with a meal at home with one’s parents would remove part of the ‘rebellious’ aspect from the thing.

Because one may not legally purchase alcohol before the age of 18, many children unsurprisingly regard it as a mark of adulthood, and feel the need to show that they are grown up by drinking irresponsibly well before that age. That also explains the unedifying sight, in market towns up and down the land, of comatose youngsters on their eighteenth birthdays, collapsed on the floors of pubs, and being cheered by all and sundry. What does this tradition tell us? It tells us that for many, there is something mystical about alcohol, some inexplicable feeling of achievement for being deemed worthy to be able finally to partake of this great wonder-working potion. But why should that be? What is the big deal about alcohol?

In all the countries in which  I have lived, I have never come across anywhere else like England with such an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I marvel at the way this country deals with alcohol. By it, many measure their worth, and only with it, would many even dare to participate in social situations. That is what Alcohol Concern should be addressing. Why are the English this way about alcohol? Perhaps people need to be taught that alcohol is not such a big deal after all. Perhaps introducing children responsibly to the more civilised aspects of alcohol consumption will enable them to stand firm against its common corrupting influences. Let children know that alcohol is not a big deal, and that it is not a magic potion. Then they will be able to deal sensibly with it.

Taking a much needed break from blogging. Back next week.

Another week, another house trashed by MySpace invaders.

How long before some Government minister (John Reid? Alan Johnson?) wades in with talk of a ban?

Busy with work right now. Will write something soon.

Here are some interesting articles about the hostages etc.

Morag considers armed forces recruitment ads and wonders if perhaps the true nature of what the forces are about has been badly downplayed. Also some analysis of the MoD’s thinking. A very interesting and thought-provoking post.

EU Referendum calls for a properly constituted Board of Inquiry into how they were taken hostage in the first place. Richard North makes the valid point that the Conservatives should be demanding a proper inquiry instead of making feeble noises about ‘lessons learnt’. Well said.

Calum Carr contrasts two recent MoD actions:

• the reluctance to provide information to the inquest into the ‘friendly-fire’ killing of Lance Corporal Matty Hull; and
• the decision to allow the captives to ‘tell all’ in response for payment.

True word, Calum. To that I might add a third, the MoD’s self-righteous persecution of David Kelly for talking to a reporter, even threatening him with dismissal.

Very good articles, all.

The shameful episode of the 15 Navy personnel refuses to go away. They can now sell their stories to the press. I wonder if any of their number would be so honourable as to turn down the offer, but I doubt it. Faye Turney is reported to have agreed a tabloid deal and an interview with ITV.

I wonder what form her tabloid interview will take. Going by past interviews, they will probably expect her to pose in her underwear, or better still, scantily clad in some of her uniform. Maybe she will have a gun slung over one shoulder as she pouts for the cameras: ‘Faye takes no hostages!’. The pictures may or may not appear on page 3. All this should make her story more salacious, and therefore more interesting than it currently is: female sailor captured by Iran, freed after several days.

What do you mean, she wouldn’t stoop that low? The way I see it, she may as well. It doesn’t matter what form the interview takes. Clad or not, the Faye Turney interview marks another low point in this dreadful saga.

Not to single her out, though. Most of the other ex-hostages are reported to have seized upon this money-making opportunity with both hands, not stopping to consider their profession, their uniform (what uniform?), or the effect of their decision on the morale of other serving comrades.

This is the same sorry group of captives who [edit: some of whom], despite being humiliatingly stripped of their uniforms, saw nothing wrong in rejoicing on Iranian television like drunken footballers returning victorious from an away game. Having lowered themselves in that way, they have probably calculated that they have nothing more to lose, and may as well gain something from their debased status.

EDIT. As to the final paragraph above, Verity has rightly pointed out that not all of the ex-captives participated in what I may call the ‘Farewell to Ahmadinejad Extravaganza’. The pictures showed about three dignified looking men maintaining their composure, whilst all around them, their colleagues comported themselves like reality TV stars. Verity is right, it is not fair to lump these dignified men together with their less inhibited brethren, so I have edited the post to reflect that.

Bank holiday begins tomorrow.

Parliament not sitting.

Fifteen captured sailors back in the UK, and all over the news.

I wonder what bad news is being buried by the Government today.

I decided to look up William Hague’s ‘foreign land’ speech which he gave at the Conservative Spring Forum in Harrogate in 2001. Remember it provoked much outrage at the time, with some even alleging racism. Here is the relevant extract:

Just imagine four more years of Labour. Try to picture what our country would look like. Let me take you on a journey to a foreign land - to Britain after a second term of Tony Blair. The Royal Mint melting down pound coins as the euro notes start to circulate. Our currency gone forever.

The Chancellor returning from Brussels carrying instructions to raise taxes still further. Control over our own economy given away. The jail doors opening as thousands more serious criminals walk out early to offend again. Police morale at a new low. The price gauge on the petrol pump spinning ever faster as fuel taxes rise still further. Letters arriving on doorsteps cancelling yet another round of hospital operations under a Government that is all spin and no delivery.

That’s Labour’s Britain four years from now.

Six years later, and apart from the currency point, every other prophecy has come true. Remind me, why all the outrage about the speech back then?

Just watching the freed sailors pay public homage to a beaming Ahmadinejad. Hilarious.

This kind of publicity he could never have bought.

Reminds me of Uganda during the ’70s, when Idi Amin performed a similar ceremony with some Britons who had taken Ugandan citizenship. First they took the oath of loyalty, paying homage to a grinning Amin. Thereafter, the four Britons lifted him shoulder high, and against a backdrop of cheering supporters, bore him aloft like a victorious king.

Perhaps we should be grateful our sailors didn’t have to go that far.

Boris Johnson has described Portsmouth as “too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs.’’

There is anger in the town.

But why? He is right, after all. The only thing Portsmouth has to complain about is that this description applies to many towns in the UK anyway, so why single them out?